The Instigator
LightC
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kachow
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Resolved: In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabi

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,149 times Debate No: 7176
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

LightC

Pro

I affirm: In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation

[Definitions]

1.Misdemeanor: a crime less serious than a felony
2.Ought: should
3.Replaced: used instead of
4.Significant: fairly large
5.Rehabilitation: the restoration of someone to a useful place in society

[Observations]

1.The affirmative burden is simple: prove that the US government should use rehabilitation rather then jail time when dealing with misdemeanors.
2.US framework
3.Rehabilitation is used in junction with jail time, thus the negative must prove that jail time should be used solely by itself, whereas the affirmative has the balance of the two. The resolution states to be replaced with significant rehabilitation; however the resolution is flawed on this basis, because it is impossible to unconditionally replace jail time with rehabilitation. Thus, for the sake of reasonable fiat, we must look at status quo circumstances.

The affirmative values Societal Welfare. This value is necessary for the following reasons:

1.The purpose of punishment is to have a utilitarian purpose, i.e. the welfare of society.
2.Societal Welfare gives a specific bright-line as a way to judge the purpose of punishment.

This value is achieved by the criterion of Lessening Recidivism (- committing the crime again). This value criterion impacts the value for the following reasons:

1.Societal Welfare is better promoted when criminals returning from incarceration will not commit recidivism, on the fact that less crimes = benefit for society.
2.Lessening recidivism relieves a burden form the state, i.e. lessening recidivism will stop multiple offenses and thus the state does not need to incarcerate or rehabilitate the offender again.

Contention I: Misdemeanor Criminals have a Better Chance of Being Rehabilitated

Misdemeanor criminals as opposed to felons have a better chance of successful rehabilitation. Misdemeanor crimes are less, e.g. stealing a candy bar. Whereas felons have raped and killed, misdemeanor criminals have either stolen something of low value or violated a traffic law, etc. The state has a better chance of rehabilitation on misdemeanor criminals then felons because misdemeanor criminals are more likely open to the treatment. The most credible research (done by a technique called meta-analysis) demonstrates that the net effect of treatment is, on average, a positive reduction of overall recidivism rates of between 10% and 12% [US Rehabilitation Department], which would promote a reduction in crime that is, by penological standards, massive.

Contention II: Negative Uses Both Jail and Rehabilitative Mechanisms

Rehabilitation, under the penal system is never done just by itself. It is done in conjunction with jail, house arrest, etc. Thus, the negative is more desirable, on a resolutional level, because it allows for both jail time and rehabilitation, whereas negating does not give you this option. Thus, the jail time allows for temporary reduction of recidivism, while the rehabilitation works for the long term goal of reducing recidivism while back in society.
Kachow

Con

I negate the resolution that states: In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation.

Definitions:

Ought:Used to express duty or moral obligation.
Rehabilitation: To reestablish the good reputation of a person.
Significant: Having or expressing a meaning; indicative, suggestive.

Resolutional Analysis:

1 Look to the resolution. Nowhere does it state that we jail and rehabilitation will exist together in equal punishment. It will be the affirmatives burden to a. prove that we these punishments are legitimate and that if instituted together, isn't considered "2" punishments.

2 Rehabilitation doesn't always work.

3 You do the crime you do the time.

Value: Societal welfare:
a.Societal welfare is given to the negative due to the prompt fact of continuing normality of the governmental system as well has providing a guarantee form of justice.
b. Our current system show no flaws, thus as of now the status quo is fully protected by the obligation that the government has to it's citizens.

Criterion: Justice
Def. The moral principle determining just conduct.
Reason proceed as to why justice is paramount.

a.– Justice ought to be served to the greater good.
In the United States the status quo claims that jail time is moral principle of conduct when serving under the punishment of crimes including misdemeanors.
b.- Justice isn't served on the affirmative because the perpetrator of the misdemeanor "gets away with the crime"
c.It is, as of now, that the United States perpetrates in a fair manner, if we negate the resolution we obtain justice BUT also for the status quo norm to occur.

Contention I: "they try to make me go to rehab but I say no no no!" [Rehab doesn't always work]

[[in reference to misdemeanors "Balance of Power" By: Paul, Wirtz, and Fortmann]] The USA has a higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any other nation in that our crime rate is higher than that of any other advanced nation. The majority of persons released from prison in the US - estimates run as high as 70% - are convicted of new misdemeanors within five years though the attempt of rehabilitation. Truth be told that 70% of criminals via no jail time and straight up rehabilitation is UNSUCCESSFUL. - - The affirmative advocates, regardless of what my opponent says, that the resolution replaces jail time with pure rehab.

Contention II: We ought not replace jail time with rehab.
The obligation that we have to our citizens is to insure and maintain the best from of justice and uphold societal welfare. This is done with the negative because we allow for the normal status quo to exist and not alter it to just rehabilitation.

Rebuttal:

Obv:
[Group 1-3]
1-The AFF cannot claim flawed resolution, the way it is written is the way it ought to be debated, interpretation can vary but under no circumstances can we claim a flawed resolution.
2-The AFF advocates two different things in his obv and contention II [noted more in argumentation against Cont. II.
3-The status quo contends jail time as a norm.

Value:

1-We aren't protecting S.W.
a.We allow for an unsuccessful tactic to be passed and thus hurts S.W to a greater degree

2-The purpose of punishment consists of retribution but not in the from of rehab. Jail time is a successful aspect that the status quo works off and achieves the greater S.W

Criterion:

1-Rehab [cross apply contention I NEG] doesn't' work.
2-Effectiveness is crucial when measuring who upholds S.W best.
3-Burden upon state increases.

Contention I:
1-it should be noted that the aff doesn't provide zero warrants in his numbers in comparison to the jail time success rate.
2-The jail success rate provides outstanding numbers.
3-There isn't a way to teach people morals [i.e. not stealing] through rehab. They ought to sit in a cell and think about what they have done. Rehab achieves nothing.

Contention II:

1- The negative advocates: the allowance for both jail time and rehabilitation, whereas negating does not give you this option.
Debate Round No. 1
LightC

Pro

I'll go NC then AC

I contest his definition of "significant". His definition gives a part of it, however the "meaning" msut come from something, so in this case you must default to aff's definition which is "fairly large"

[Observations]

1. Rehabilitation does not exist with jail

--> The resolution is using a US framework, and in the US rehabilitation is used in conjunction with jail, thus for this round I must prove that rehabilitation ought to be prioritized, but I do not have to prover sole rehabilitation.

2. Rehabilitation doesn't always work

--> I never said it is absolute. Jail doesn't always work either, e.g. escaping from prison. nothing is absolute

3. Retribution

--> Aff. doesn't have to prove total abolishment of jail

V: Societal Welfare

--> Ok, value for the round
--> He does not however say how continuing governmental normality helps societal welfare
--> He argues that the status quo shows no flaws. This completely contradicts what he says under his contentions. However, I will bring that up alter in my speech.

VC: Justice

--> His definition of justice is circular. He says justice determines just conduct, but he never explains what justice is.

--> I agree with premise a under justice. I.e. justice is for the greater good.

--> I disagree with premise b: He says the perpetrator gets away with the crime, however again, the affirmative is not abolishing jail time, I am just arguing that rehabilitation should be a priority.

--> In premise C hen argues status quo, but that is no reason to negate I will prove a disadvantage within the status quo.

C1 - Amy Winehouse Point (Rehabiltiation doesn't work)

--> This contention is wrong for the following reasons:

1. It is inconsistent. He argues that the status quo is fine w/o rehabilitation, however he then says that 70% of people recommit crimes.
2. It is flawed. He jumps to a horrible conclusion. At this point rehabilitation is not prioritized in the US system. He jumps to the conclusion that the people recommitting crimes came from rehabilitation. This could be and false. What he doesn't tell you is that the 70% includes all criminals, rehabilitated for not.
3. (Turn) The affirmative in this case is more desirable because it changes the status quo in which we can now prioritize the rehabilitation system and see if it is successful.

C2 - Not Replace

1. Status Quo is superior

Ok, major points agaisnt neg's case:

1. He argues Societal Welfare but he never proves why the status quo is efficient is archiving this.
2. His point can be turned because it gives the US avenue to prioritize rehabilitation as a means to promote societal welfare.
3. His point that I am advocating rehabilitation as a pure form is mitigated by his own assertion of the status quo within the US framework

[Defense]

Observations

"1-The AFF cannot claim flawed resolution, the way it is written is the way it ought to be debated, interpretation can vary but under no circumstances can we claim a flawed resolution."

--> I'm sorry if my words came out odd. I was saying that the literal wording of the resolution is contradictory to the US status quo, thus we must assume US framework. And you have asserted the status quo thus we can both agree to this ob. 1

"2-The AFF advocates two different things in his obv and contention II"

--> Um no, I am saying that jail and rehabilitation is used in conjunction. I.e. the aff doesn't have to prove abolishment of the jail system, rather to prove rehabilitation prioritization w/ jail.

"3-The status quo contends jail time as a norm."

--> Indeed. However the US only sues rehabilitation w/ jail time.

V: Societal Welfare

"1-We aren't protecting S.W.
a.We allow for an unsuccessful tactic to be passed and thus hurts S.W to a greater degree"

--> We will see when I come down to my contentions

2-The purpose of punishment consists of retribution but not in the from of rehab. Jail time is a successful aspect that the status quo works off and achieves the greater S.W

--> Again, I am not abolishing jail.
--> Obviously the status quo isn't good (view turn on C1)

VC: Lessening Recidivism

"1-Rehab [cross apply contention I NEG] doesn't' work."

--> Cannot be empirically determined because the US has not prioritized the system as of yet.
--> (Warrant) Europe has significantly lower crimes rates then the US, and guess what? They prioritize rehabilitation.

2-Effectiveness is crucial when measuring who upholds S.W best.

--> It is effective

3-Burden upon state increases.

--> I would argue no, on the fact that rehabilitation lowers recidivism, thus the government does not have to recapture them and put them through jail again.

C1 - Misdemeanor Criminals have a better chance of being rehabilitated

"1-it should be noted that the aff doesn't provide zero warrants in his numbers in comparison to the jail time success rate."

--> He uses a double-negative thus saying that I do provide warrants.
--> He never provides a warrant on the success of the status quo
--> Extend my stat on the fact that he never refutes it, and it proves that changing the status quo will lead to less recidivism (Cannot attack it in his next speech)

"2-The jail success rate provides outstanding numbers"

--> lol, look to the 70% recidivism rates within the status quo that he provided
--> He never provides an "outstanding number" at all in this round

"3-There isn't a way to teach people morals [i.e. not stealing] through rehab. They ought to sit in a cell and think about what they have done. Rehab achieves nothing."

--> Interesting, he says that rehabilitation doesn't do anything, however he says go sit in a cell. That provides solvency for the attack proposed by the negative........not.

C2 - Conjunction use

1 - the aff cannot declare two punishments.

--> Rehabiltiaiton isn't a "punishment". It is a restorative mechanism in conjunction with punishment.

2 - use of both nearly proves that a perpetrator can get away with least amount of jail time.

--> What is your warrant for that?

3 - the negative allows for 2 legitimate areas of analysis [cross apply cont. 1and2]that detail why it's wrong to declare the use of both when the resolution says replace with. -

--> Ob. 1 argues a different resolutional interpretation, one that you link into when you assert the status quo.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, plus judges.
Kachow

Con

NC-AC

Resolutional Analysis
1- "The resolution is using a US framework, and in the US rehabilitation is used in conjunction with jail, thus for this round I must prove that rehabilitation ought to be prioritized, but I do not have to prove sole rehabilitation"

� ahem. Resolved: In the U.S misdemeanor jail time ought to be REPLACED with significant rehab.. With emphasis on the word replaced one has to contend that jail time is and will be replaced on the affirmative side with a pure "significant" amount of rehabilitation.
� Rehabilitation wouldn't be a high priority; it would be the only priority due to the missing factor of jail. [[Not good J]]

2- "I never said it is absolute. Jail doesn't always work either, e.g. escaping from prison. nothing is absolute"

� Why advocate something that isn't absolute. –
� [warrant/clarification] – My 70% card is implied as to that 70% of those who had gone though rehabilitation recommitted crimes. This proves that rehabilitation isn't as effective as jail.
� I prove to you that jail time ought to be ensured and maintained, not taken away. It's our best option, by voting aff you take REPLACE jail with rehabilitation.

3- "Aff. doesn't have to prove total abolishment of jail"
� Aha. Yeah you do. You advocate the resolution you REPLACE jail. [I like capitalizing that word.]

V:

1- "She does not say how continuing governmental normality helps societal welfare"

�Governmental normality = jail. – I've been advocating that jail time helps societal welfare through stats. – Which are pretty impressive ;] – further more, by not following governmental normality we risk societal welfare. It's common sense.

VC:

1-And 2 - "Her definition of justice is circular. He says justice determines just conduct, but he never explains what justice is" "I agree with premise a under justice. I.e. justice is for the greater good."
� You and I both contend for the greater good, however you fail to tell me how exactly you are achieving the betterment of the greater good. I speak of flaws that come with change within governmental normality, however all you advocate is the REPLACEMENT of jail with rehabilitation, but you show no from of how this impacts society to the best aspect.
�I contend that justice is as well to provide to the greater good.

CI:

1- "It is inconsistent. She argues that the status quo is fine w/o rehabilitation, however he then says that 70% of people recommit crimes."

�Cross apply my clarification and warrant under R.A #2.

2- "It is flawed. She jumps to a horrible conclusion. At this point rehabilitation is not prioritized in the US system. She jumps to the conclusion that the people recommitting crimes came from rehabilitation. This could be and false. What she doesn't tell you is that the 70% includes all criminals, rehabilitated for not."

�Reasoning as to why it isn't prioritized in the U.S system. – oh maybe it's because it isn't efficient in that of itself proves why negative ought to maintain and not replace jail with rehabilitation

3- "(Turn) The affirmative in this case is more desirable because it changes the status quo in which we can now prioritize the rehabilitation system and see if it is successful."

� Aha. – Why would we seek to "see if it is successful" when we already know that it isn't. Why waste, time, money and effort to be in affirmation of a silly resolution, which clearly sways to the negative.

CII:

1-[[group]] "1. He argues Societal Welfare but he never proves why the status quo is efficient is archiving this.
2. His point can be turned because it gives the US avenue to prioritize rehabilitation as a means to promote societal welfare.
3. His point that I am advocating rehabilitation as a pure form is mitigated by his own assertion of the status quo within the US framework"
�The status quo is efficient when achieving S.W for the following reasons: a. We advocate governmental normality. B. We have a higher success rate with jail vs. rehab. C. We don't abolish jail, which is what the AFF is doing.
�Again we ought not make rehabilitation a priority at it's highest. It's simply not worth giving up jail.

AC:

Obv:

1- "I'm sorry if my words came out odd. I was saying that the literal wording of the resolution is contradictory to the US status quo, thus we must assume US framework. And you have asserted the status quo thus we can both agree to this ob. 1"

�Sweet.

2- "Um no, I am saying that jail and rehabilitation is used in conjunction. I.e. the aff doesn't have to prove abolishment of the jail system, rather to prove rehabilitation prioritization w/ jail."

�Jail and rehabilitation cannot be used in conjunction. Again note the resolution the affirmative has to prove abolishment of the jail system because that is exactly what the resolution is saying that we ought to REPLACE.

V:

1- "Again, I am not abolishing jail. Obviously the status quo isn't good (view turn on C1)"

�you advocate the resolution. You abolish and replace jail with rehabilitation to misdemeanor crimes. – Your idealistic reach for the status quo to be perfect isn't possible. - - I prove that rehabilitation is a terrible idea. Prove to me that jail is terrible.

VC:

1-"Cannot be empirically determined because the US has not prioritized the system as of yet. (Warrant) Europe has significantly lower crimes rates then the US, and guess what? They prioritize rehabilitation."

� We haven't prioritized the system for a reason. It's flawed.. - - ugh. Why bring up Europe? - - Resolved. IN THE UNITED STATES – in this case we can only base things off of the U.S success rates, for you do not provide ANY detail as to whether or not Europe includes all crimes, just misdemeanors, or jail time as well as rehabilitation. Flawed once again L.

2-"It is effective"
� :s. – do you really want to claim that rehabilitation is effective…?

3-"I would argue no, on the fact that rehabilitation lowers recidivism, thus the government does not have to recapture them and put them through jail again."
�in here lies that prompt fact that again you fail to show how rehabilitation lowers recidivism. Right now the government is forced to recapture criminals and put them trough jail again because of the 70% of those who have gone through rehabilitation.

CI:

1-"He uses a double-negative thus saying that I do provide warrants. He never provides a warrant on the success of the status quo. Extend my stat on the fact that he never refutes it, and it proves that changing the status quo will lead to less recidivism (Cannot attack it in his next speech)"
�I provide warrant….

2-"lol, look to the 70% recidivism rates within the status quo that he provided
He never provides an "outstanding number" at all in this round"
� Oh but I do. And you DON'T. -: D

CII:

1-"Rehabilitation isn't a "punishment". It is a restorative mechanism in conjunction with punishment."
�You speak of rehabilitation used inclusively with jail time [which has been noted several times through this longwinded speech as false] – how can you claim that it isn't a punishment I need warrant on this. –

CRYSTALIZATION!!!!

1 – Values:
a.Justice vs. Societal Welfare – It is obvious that both are achieved on the negative side of the flow. But look to the flaws of the affirmative, in that of itself should provide judges with enough common knowledge that rehabilitation actually dampens S.W but also doesn't accomplish to accommodate to justice once so ever.

2 – Argumentation:
A.Judges, I really would like you to look at the general refutation within this speech for 2 reasons. – I currently have stomach flu – and for me to type this was one heck of a task. – and finally because I have A LOT of makeup homework :]

Good luck sir LightC.
I'll have germ-x before we shake hands.
Much appreciation to judges.
Debate Round No. 2
LightC

Pro

Ok, I'll go through major clashes which will ultimately be the voters (Keeping it short to be close to LD)

1. Framework

--> I clearly win the framework on the fact that you need to reinterpret this resolution so it makes consistent sense. Since the resolution is in a US framework, we need to look at the status quo system and then the future system that I am proposing. On the affirmative, to be consistent with US standards, I only need to prove a prioritization of the rehabilitation system, not a total abolition of the jail system.

2. Jail more effective then rehabilitation

A. Jail more effective

--> She keeps on saying how good her stats on jail effectiveness are, yet she never provides one.

B. Rehabilitation has failed in the past

--> She uses a stat that criminals that have been rehabilitated have committed recidivism. This stat fails on the following premises:

1. The US status quo does not prioritize rehabilitation, thus it does not have the resources to be effective.
2. Extend my Europe example, Europe prioritizes rehabilitation and yet they have a lower crime rate then the US.
3. Extend my stat from the AC which explains that recidivism would decrease 10% - 14% if the US prioritized rehabilitation

3. Values Debate

--> The affirmative clearly links better into both values on the basis of my VC. This is a clear aff. win on the fact that rehabilitation will lessen recidivism, thus justice and societal welfare.

I urge an affirmative ballot, thank you.
Kachow

Con

Good round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
Convincing arguments: Con. I agreed with her resolutional analysis. Pro's argument that we must radically reinterpret the resolution to adapt to the current US framework just didn't make sense to me. The very purpose of the affirmative is usually to CHANGE the current framework. The responsibility of the affirmative is to change the current framework, not the resolution itself!

Conduct: Con. Pro at times indulged in attacks that lessened his credibility, such as "He uses a double-negative thus saying that I do provide warrants." It was obvious to me what Con was saying; the double-negative didn't impede the meaning.

Reliable Sources: Tie

Spelling and Grammar: Tie.
Posted by Kachow 7 years ago
Kachow
btw my little CRYSTALIZATION was just for funsies
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"uh, u cant make an argument in the comments, section,"

Where's it say that? :)
Posted by LightC 7 years ago
LightC
oh, lol, srry ^^
Posted by Kachow 7 years ago
Kachow
Much appreciated.

btw. - i'm a girl.
Posted by LightC 7 years ago
LightC
uh, u cant make an argument in the comments, section, but I'll still respond to it
Posted by Kachow 7 years ago
Kachow
"Contention II: Negative Uses Both Jail and Rehabilitative Mechanisms

Rehabilitation, under the penal system is never done just by itself. It is done in conjunction with jail, house arrest, etc. Thus, the negative is more desirable, on a resolutional level, because it allows for both jail time and rehabilitation, whereas negating does not give you this option. Thus, the jail time allows for temporary reduction of recidivism, while the rehabilitation works for the long term goal of reducing recidivism while back in society."

With me just now reading these comments if possible apply this argumentation:
1 - the aff cannot declare two punishments.
2 - use of both nearly proves that a perpetrator can get away with least amount of jail time.
3 - the negative allows for 2 legitimate areas of analysis [cross apply cont. 1and2]that detail why it's wrong to declare the use of both when the resolution says replace with. - -
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Well, libertarianism or individualism would mean you'd have to rewrite your case...

A set of words that would mean something in the context of your argument..., hmm, I'm not sure actually, because I don't know how much your proposal costs, and such would be necessary for the kind of cost-benefit analysis called for here-- it would have to be less than the cost of reimprisoning 10-12% of the criminals for it to be good for the set of taxpayers, and no matter what it's definitely bad for those seeking to recruit criminals to step up their game (Mafia dons are part of society too)..

A trait of a collective, to mean something, has to be Pareto, given the nonfungibility of human utility... i.e., for something to be good for a group, it has to be good for some in that group and not bad for any in that group.

This is, of course, impossible for something as ambigouos as "Society" given the conflicts of interest which do take place in it among irrational types.
Posted by LightC 7 years ago
LightC
What, like "Libertarianism" or "Individualism"? Societal Welfare = good value ^^
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Societal welfare...."

What? Use words that mean something :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
LightCKachowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Kachow 7 years ago
Kachow
LightCKachowTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
LightCKachowTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07